Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Truth of the Path
Silouan
Veteran
In the spirit of @MaryAnne 's call to a higher standard, and for the benefit of all.
There has been many a discussion on this forum when validation of one's belief is required, but we have been rather quick to point out the reasons for invalidating the beliefs of others to support our own beliefs.
Without using the invalidation of another religion please explain why you believe in the respective teachings of your chosen path. Is there some kind of evidence or personal experiences that validate what you believe, or is it something else?
There has been many a discussion on this forum when validation of one's belief is required, but we have been rather quick to point out the reasons for invalidating the beliefs of others to support our own beliefs.
Without using the invalidation of another religion please explain why you believe in the respective teachings of your chosen path. Is there some kind of evidence or personal experiences that validate what you believe, or is it something else?
0
Comments
No 'Belief' is necessary, in Buddhism per se, because the teachings are verifiable through practice. There is nothing "unseen" to believe. if you can't take it in - it's no big deal. Matters such as Rebirth and the workings of Kamma are not obligatory to live by, if you get my drift.
Could you say then that the practice provides validation of the teachings, and also one must experience in their life the results or fruits of the practice?
nothing more is required.
The reason they are called the 4 Noble Truths - is because their fundamental Truth is indisputable.
I think, as you're on a Buddhist website, it might pay you to do a fair bit of research....
Yeah, I'm not buying that so easily.... There is always an air of challenge; always an air of superiority when you compare your Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Buddhism and other religions.
And you always do compare them, time and time again, in all sorts of ways in all sorts of topic threads. I honestly don't get what other purpose you have for being here in this (Buddhist) forum most of the time. But eh.... I'll stay out of it.
In Buddhism, we have no need for such an acceptance of something. It's easy to find Buddhists who disagree with certain things. That's because (hopefully) we are taught to rely upon our own investigation of life as it is happening in and around us. So we can investigate the noble truths, and begin to see their truth. They don't have to be fully accepted before we can use them. The more we practice, the more they unfold; it's a learning curve. While we learn we can apply what we learned to our lives.
Therefore I would never use the word 'belief' to describe Buddhism, at least not as I practice it. I've always used my own investigation as the basis of my view on life and along with me many other Buddhists. It's applied science, really.
Now as the practice unfolds and what we experience starts to accord with what the Buddha taught, naturally a lot of people place faith in his words and take on ideas they haven't yet verified. I think that can be useful, but it may also be a dangerous territory, for it may stop investigation. So when in contrast people doubt some teachings, that's perfectly fine in Buddhism and the Buddha wouldn't disapprove of that I think. And that's part of the beauty of Buddhism and again why it's comparable to a science.
But even things like rebirth can be verified, although it seems a bit rare for people to do so. So those things can also come from investigation rather than belief.
Personally I could never come from a ground of belief, I'm way too skeptic for that and have always been. So things I say is because I really think that's the truth of things, the truth I find in my heart. Not to glorify myself - surely not - but if all people on earth would do that, I think that would be good for the world. Too much people just repeat what they hear elsewhere, beit a religion or media like television. Be really still and listen to your heart, that's where the answers are.
Metta!
Sabre
I respect what you say, but that is not the intention.
There is much ignorance in this world, and this site is not impervious to it. There is much bashing of other religious traditions, and in particular Christianity, but it is a much more difficult thing to do when someone has an opposing voice, and there are others on this site that do feel the same way and voice their opposition and are railed against as well, and some of them have faith in Christ too.
I have asked a question in a way that I hoped would be free from focusing on the need to use invalidation of someone elses religion to validate their own , and if I ask of someone more questions it is to clarify the response.
I believe you are correct in that assessment, but that would be the topic of another discussion.
Ok, what is belief? I cannot see touch taste smell or hear it. It does not brush my shin like a cat, it does not bind my clothes or my bones, I do not need to infer it to produce spacecraft. It confuses me entirely.
Hi @Silouan,
You asked me not to invalidate another religion, I think I didn't. Instead I've argued that validation is a personal thing. I didn't say accepting a God was wrong or right, good or bad, but to my personal experience it is what sets off Buddhism compared to a lot of other religions - without any judgement involved. It's just like saying, some people go left, others go right. That's not invalidating any particular direction, that's just stating how I see things. After that I spend a lot of more lines explained how I see Buddhism - perhaps you could respond on that since that's what you asked for.
I honestly thought it was a simple question. I didn't see it as you say, but if that's how its perceived what can I do? I tried.
Again, this isn't a thought experiment. I really don't perceive any substance to the word belief. In fact, I perceive its lack of substance.
Thank you for clarifying. In attempting to be the "discussion police" I totally missed your other commentary. It was a nice explanation.
faith strenthen the mind and give support to bear the unpleaseant experience one has to bear
so no matter what religion you believe have in faith in it but open to other religions too
that will help us to develop
C.S. Lewis said that for most people, God is the corner of their bedroom ceiling. Is belief a quickening of the pulse, firm set of the jaw and starry eyes raised to an empty sky? Because that's all I ever saw in myself when I watched myself believe in things.
But I wanted my life to be wonderful, so to give up the notion that there was such a thing as belief in heaven or nirvana, or a self to believe in these things, seemed beside the point to me.
Both these ideas are taken for granted but are fundamentally different to my experience of life. What you call choice appears to me as furrowing the brow and looking at the floor for a moment.
Perhaps the use of the word belief is the wrong word to use because it can be understood to mean something entirely different amongst various groups. Maybe what you accept as being true might be better. Any suggestions?
:rockon:
Pontius Pilate asked 'What is truth?'. I used to think that was a great question for Jesus, but actually it's a terrible question. Because if you're asking it, it means you're lying to yourself about what you already know.
The question 'what is belief', might be a better question, or at least a safer one to begin with. If you could settle that, you wouldn't need to ask the other question.
Now the response I have given can spark this whole discussion into an entirely different direction. One outside the faith would assume it means blind faith, but it requires living a way of life wherein the truth is revealed and validated by one's personal experience, and I will leave it at that.
One outside the faith... no, I wouldn't assume blind faith. I wouldn't assume faith at all, because I don't think there is such a thing. I think we live in our memories and as we look back we use ideas like faith or belief to explain why we do things. But I could dismantle memory and who would bat an eyelid?
Who is truth? Inside, outside. A clam or a womb and mannequin or a trick with mirrors. Who? Walking, talking, speaking, resting. He is to himself the mirror inside yet to my eyes he appears, says 'I am, I feel, I think'. I watch him preach through a thicket. A waterclock. Perfect in contrast or perfect absolute?
With such questions, I confine my soul to a threshing machine. All for me. Not for God or Jesus or the human race. All for me. Damned as deep as can be and unafraid and never was or could be and saved.
Interpretation is one thing. What they state, is another. The fundamental statements of the 4NT are indisputable.
That's for a different thread.
I would be more interested to know why, when so many find better fulfilment in Buddhism and turn away from Christianity, Silouan has actually done the reverse.
But that's another thread too.
If any thread were ever indeed to materialise, and I'm not suggesting it should, or that anyone has a right to create publicly.
In a way it is seeing how beliefs construct reality directly.
And in a broader way it is the end beliefs. End of fabrication, construction.
All beliefs start with the "thing". Or the assumption of a reference point, source, center. Be it self or other.
And sure its possible to replace this lack of construction with a new construction but then suffering follows.
So have it your way and a med coke with that.
Turned away but hasn't ceased looking back, as evidenced by still being here on this website. If Christianity were enough, this topic wouldn't even be a discussion, IMO.
I know I didn't get the whole statment right; but I wanted to say, that didn't Jesus tolerate those who were not of his company, but yet preached in his name?
In a sense, it is ones personal prediction of a particular outcome. Whether that faith seems "blind" to others is a matter of explaining to them what leads you to believe in your own prediction--whereupon they decided whether or not your faith is blind
Many, many social factors go into faith. If I, raised by a wonderful father, tell a kid raised by a terrible, abusive, lying father that "My dad's going to buy me a bike today," that abused kid may well think my faith is blind. It doesn't matter to the abused kid that I personally have seen my father's promises come true over and over--and therefore I have reasoned faith, not blind faith, in these promises--to the abused kid, such promises are never kept. So, to him, my faith is blind.
So faith is not simply a matter of "blind expectation" with zero factors. It's almost not possible to have truly blind faith--even our "blind" faith in a complete stranger is conditioned by our childhood, by whether we have a general sense that people are good, or that they're bad. The blindest possible follower of the most ridiculously unqualified leader is, nonetheless, partly basing his/her faith in that leader on the fact that people in his/her past have been trustworthy.
No being (well, almost none) will purposely throw themselves into a situation they think will kill them or hurt them, so any "blind" faith is really, before it even happens, at least "slightly-reasoned" faith (unless the person just has zero sense of judgement or is otherwise impaired).
Imho, then, it's not really a question of blind faith; it's a question of how your faith is reasoned. This might range from "barely-reasoned" to "thoroughly, to the best of ones ability, reasoned." But even so, much reason lies within the reasoner--someone may not accept your process of reasoning as valid, no matter how thorough you feel it has been.
The statement that "non-Buddhist teachers have not extinguished all faults as their view is of permanent, single independent self " is very narrow, and really would depend upon how you are defining permanent, single independent self and what non-Buddhist teachers and their respective traditions you are applying it to. You are assuming only Buddhism provides insight into interdependency and the emptying of the self.
Also, there are those who practice Buddhism in many cultures who probably have never heard of, or don't have the academic knowledge to offer exquisite explanations with regards to emptiness, dependent origination, and no-self etc... They may practice any number of the myriad forms of Buddhism that don't require such knowledge, but this doesn't exclude them from developing humility, kindness, and compassion.
So the OP is asking for subjective information. He is asking for it to be understood or interpreted as though you were the originator of that information (the collective of your experience), rather than using your perspective as a comparison. It is my perspective that the OP is asking about what cannot be transmitted by communication.
I follow buddhism (no particular sect) because I have found that it stabilizes and enhances my life; it makes the most sense to me; it claims no authority; and I have had experiences which are undeniable to me, but can never be transmitted as convincing proof to anyone. This is purely subjective for everybody reading this. On a conventional level it is objective for me. Nobody on this forum will ever have access to my mind; and that is required to understand why it is objective for me. You may have similar experiences and we can relate on a number of levels (superficial to deep), but it isn't evidence or proof of anything. On a non-conventional level, even my objective experiences are only based on my experience of my own nervous system, and thus subjective.
I hope this makes sense. I think this is a great question, but destined to fail (my interpretation of) its intended goal, simply due to the limitations of biology and speech.
Actually, you provided the response that matched the intent of the question.
I found the teachings themselves both rational and empirical in nature. The Buddha isn't talking about anything beyond empirical observations (although some things do stem from extrasensory perception) and divisions of experience that are utilized to eliminate suffering in the mind; and the noble eightfold path doesn't rely or depend upon things I can't easily experience for myself or intellectually grasp on my own. Even its ethical structure is based on the perceived cause and effect relationship between our actions (kamma) and how they're experienced (kammavipaka). The methodology is pretty straightforward.
I spent a lot of time visiting a Thai Theravada temple near my house and meditating, especially during some really difficult times; and I had a feeling that this path had more potential for my spiritual growth and well-being than any I'd previously undertaken. I even quit my job at one point to spent some time living at a Buddhist monastery in Perry, MI.
Over the past decade, my study and practice has helped me in a number of ways, mainly by helping me to better deal with a range of emotional issues that have plagued me since adolescence, particularly depression and violent, angry outbursts, neither of which were abated by medication or pleas to the unknown. While progress has been relatively slow, there's been definite improvements over the years, which have been noticeable not only to myself, but to friends and family as well. Much of this is thanks to following the Buddha's advice to his son, Rahula, in MN 61, observing the five precepts, and practicing mindfulness. Unfortunately, the results are difficult if not impossible to prove objectively, even though I've validated them personally by noticing the positive changes in myself and having them verified by 3rd parties such as family and friends.
I more or less see Buddhism as what we might call a type of 'transcendent psychology' (as in improving mental well-being far beyond what average psychologists believe is possible), which has the same problem psychology of any type does. Just as as I can say that seeing a psychologist and doing x has improved my life, made me happier, and relieved my mental suffering by noticeable degrees, it's still a subjective claim that can't be directly verified. I'm comfortable with that, however, because my ethical-spiritual beliefs and practice are ultimately pragmatic, serving a practical purpose that's subjectively beneficial regardless of their objective validity.
Incidentally, this is why I tend to have sympathy for theists, even though I don't have any theistic beliefs myself. While I find too many logical inconsistencies in the Bible to view it as the infallible word of God, there are some interesting philosophical arguments for the existence of God (although, not necessarily a personal God); and I understand that a belief in God can provide comfort in difficult times, as well as serve as the basis for a beneficial ethical-spiritual practice, just as my Buddhist beliefs can. I also accept that certain people may have had some kind of profound spiritual experience that's led them to such a belief.
What I generally don't accept, however, are dogmatic statements about absolute truth and/or reality, especially when they stem from an 'appeal to authority' or personal experience. In the former, the validity of a statement rests not on its own logical coherence or truth, but on the supposed status of the source as an 'authority.' In the latter's case, there's generally no way to confirm or deny them, so they're not very useful in proving something to someone who hasn't had them, which is why I generally stick to discussing my knowledge and understanding of the Buddha's teachings rather than their objective validity or my personal experiences.
Unless you can indicate some other non-Buddhist teaching that does not fall into the extremes of Nihlism or Eternalism - into extreme asceticism or indulgence - then your statement flounders for want of support.
Buddhism is not humanism by another name. There are any number who practice compassion and one rejoices in such activity but practicing compassion does not extinguish all faults.